Welcome to DealershipForum.com

You’re currently visiting our Forum as a guest which limits your access. If you’re a Dealer Principal or work at an Automotive Dealership we would like to invite you to join our community. Membership is 100% FREE and provides you with the following benefits:

Ability to respond to existing posts and create new posts

Ability to vote in our Monthly Poll and post your own thoughts and opinions

Access to our Search Engine allowing you to search the database of existing posts

I wasn't even aware that the motorcycle market was soft until some of our members mentioned that here in another thread a month or so ago.

As I understand it Polaris developed the Victory Motorcycle brand as a start up 18 years ago and then bought Indian Motorcycle brand when it went bankrupt about 10 years ago.

Do most Victory Dealers also have the Indian franchise? If not I could see how there could be some resentment because Polaris used their capital and resources to develop the Indian brand when they could have supported the Victory franchise.

Very much like the loyal GM dealers who resented GM's development of the Saturn Franchise when those resources could have been used to make their existing brands more competitive in the market.

I think an article I read said there were 140 dealers out of 400 that had both lines. Makes me wonder about how committed Polaris is. The dropped watercraft after a couple bad years. I'm curious how this will affect Indian? My gut says it won't help them. Victory people may be pissed enough to put a "concrete spotter" in their garage. God forbid they look at a metric bike.

I'm curious to see how they treat the dealers, and how state franchise laws will come into play.

With Steve's last question, How do most states treat the MC franchise? Is it a separate Agency (?) or part of the Motor Vehicle franchise Commission? In Kentucky, Motor Vehicle is For Cars and Trucks, and the Commission does not "regulate" MC.

With Steve's last question, How do most states treat the MC franchise? Is it a separate Agency (?) or part of the Motor Vehicle franchise Commission? In Kentucky, Motor Vehicle is For Cars and Trucks, and the Commission does not "regulate" MC.

Here in South Dakota they are the same as automobiles. Our state dealer association got them included many years ago. Our association is very pro active.

I think an article I read said there were 140 dealers out of 400 that had both lines. Makes me wonder about how committed Polaris is. The dropped watercraft after a couple bad years. I'm curious how this will affect Indian? My gut says it won't help them. Victory people may be pissed enough to put a "concrete spotter" in their garage. God forbid they look at a metric bike.

I'm curious to see how they treat the dealers, and how state franchise laws will come into play.

Thanks for the information.

I remember when Polaris dropped their watercraft line - as I recall they lost a personal injury lawsuit and that was partially blamed for the reason they decided to exit the business.

I agree that it will be interesting to see how they treat their dealers - some OEMs have certainly done better than others when it comes to terminating brands.

Here in South Dakota they are the same as automobiles. Our state dealer association got them included many years ago. Our association is very pro active.

Does "Pro-active" mean defensive and protective of the power base for the Commission, or does it mean aggressive to protect the base of the in-state dealership body?? I have found some evidence to believe the former is the case , i.e., how the Commission failed to support its dealers during the Obama Dealer Massacre. At that time we had a Democratic Attorney General and Governor (both elected 2 years before) and the Commission became "weak kneed!"

Does "Pro-active" mean defensive and protective of the power base for the Commission, or does it mean aggressive to protect the base of the in-state dealership body?? I have found some evidence to believe the former is the case , i.e., how the Commission failed to support its dealers during the Obama Dealer Massacre. At that time we had a Democratic Attorney General and Governor (both elected 2 years before) and the Commission became "weak kneed!"

Oh no, our association is all for the dealer body. I was an effected dealer in '09 and testified in front of our legislature for changes to our state law that would keep anything like that from happening again. The changes passed both the senate and house with NO dissenting votes. This was in 2010, to late to help me but hopefully help my dealer friends if that BULL**** is tried again. GM, Ford and Chrysler sent some expensive lobbyists and they got shut out......no one would even talk to them. God I love South Dakota! I'll try to find a link to the testimony, it use to be on the state website.

Does "Pro-active" mean defensive and protective of the power base for the Commission, or does it mean aggressive to protect the base of the in-state dealership body?? I have found some evidence to believe the former is the case , i.e., how the Commission failed to support its dealers during the Obama Dealer Massacre. At that time we had a Democratic Attorney General and Governor (both elected 2 years before) and the Commission became "weak kneed!"

I always think of the NADA when I think of an organization that had an obligation to the OLDCO Dealers but instead chose to leave those members "twisting in the wind" as they focused all of their efforts on the dealers who remained.

I think there's a HUGE variance on how effective the State Dealer Associations - some are very good at ensuring their members are represented and others are mostly a waste of time.